As for those who assert that MW3 and BF3 are completely different genres and thus any comparison is terribly unfair: I haven't played either of them and thus, from my perspective, both games are realistic-ish military-themed first-person shooters. Perhaps you'd care to summarize where lies the distinction.

If you're talking SP, there is precious little difference - with BF3 having the worse one. A retarded objective marker leading you like cattle, inability to open doors, tiring scripted sequences. The fact that people enjoy these boggles my mind. In my humble opinion, these franchises should scrap the SP portion and release the games as MP-only (like the previous BF games) at a reduced price. Emergent gameplay is where all the fun is.

But MP-wise, it's pretty pointless comparing these two. BF3 has enormous maps complete with support classes and vehicles, whereas MW3 has maps the size of shoeboxes where getting spawn-killed is a daily business (not hating on CoD by the way, having clocked countless hours in MW1). One accommodates teamplay and strategy, while the other is pure adrenaline-fueled lone-wolf gameplay.

OT: That was one of the most entertaining episodes of recent memory. All those criticizing Yahtzee for not reviewing the MP should remember he doesn't consider himself to be reviewer and doesn't dole out scores. If you're here for reviews, well, don't be. And if you're offended by Yahtzee trashing your favorite game, either laugh with us like a man, or just not watch his videos since he has a very specific agenda - trashing games for the sake of humor.

You wanted a reason why he doesn't review multi-player, I gave you one.

Yes, but that does not mean that a company should sell a game at half price if it has a heavy multiplayer basis, where did you get that idea?

Team Fortress 2: $20 new on release dayUnreal Tournament 2004: $30 new on release day

That's why. If your game is built entirely for the multiplayer, and "no one plays the campaign anyway", why charge full price?

Oh yeah, you've got me up against the wall there, two games, both of which are several years old, as opposed to the games in Halo COD Battlefield, Gears of War Medal of Honor Starcraft and other games. Also what the heck do you mean people don't play campaign? I always play the campaign on games that I buy, multiple times in fact. Also, none of these games are built for multiplayer, all of those that I have played have had very well built campaigns

Oh great another flamethread...And I do hope that he never reviews, no, wait critiques Skyrim (he is a CRITIC, he tells people what he thinks about games, he does not REVIEW them, which is why he doesn't need to tell everyone about all the awesome stuff and features in a game but has the freedom to nitpick a game to death. This is also why he is not obliged to play the multiplayer...), since him doing so would result in another TRILLION dragon shout jokes, which are worse than the cake=lie jokes we had to endure already. I haven't even played the game and yet I already feel a strong AVERSION since everyone and his dog and his dogs fleas are making these damned FUs ROH DA-Jokes.

Now on topic: Prototype and inFamous: Very much similiar games, althoug one was a bit grittier whilst the other was more cartoonish, but same basic principles. (You are a guy with superpowers, the city is your playground and there are fleshy beings walking around which you can dispose of).

BF3 and CODMW3: Brown FPS. Retarded plots. Same basic thing. Oh and one other thing: Seeing that someone bothered to mention every new thing BF3 brings, as far as graphics etc. are concerned: That doesn't matter. It could be the prettiest game in the universe and still suck if it isn'T fun, and it isn't. As long as the game itself is no fun (the singleplayer, mind you) then it is nothing but a glorified tech demo. And if you see my "Singleplayer must be fun" and raise me the "But it's all about the online experience" then I raise you "EA Origin". Not gonna get that. And if you want to point out that I could play BF3 on a console, if I so chose to then I shall point out that BF3 is a port, which means that it won't be as pretty as the exclusives, stripping it of the tech-demo aspect. And if I wanted multiplayer on console, then I would buy an exclusive, thank you very much.Oh and since I spat on BF3 so much: CODMW3 sucks as well but I hope that I don't need to explain why I feel that way. (Retarded plot, bad single player experience, I dislike multiplayer + BAD multiplayer).

In conclusion: The comparison was justified, fanboys are ennerving and CODMW3 sucks just as much as BF3, although I must admit that I was happy to see that CODMW3 made more money because EA ORIGIN.

DVS BSTrD:Another head to head review? Did Christmas come early this year?although I would have thought the game with the neon space bazookas that fires venomous hedgehogs would win by default. But since that weapon isn't actually in the game...And we know why You haven't reviewed Skyrim yet Yahtzee. It's because you can't put that particular crack pipe down long enough to actually write the review =D

Fun Fact: Anglo-Zanzibar War was indeed the shortest war in history

And do the servers here always tweak-out whenever ZP goes up? That gave me a real scare!

And who exactly was timing this war?

OT: Great episode amd good move not deciding a winner, because in the end, we are all losers for buying the same game every year.

Yes, but that does not mean that a company should sell a game at half price if it has a heavy multiplayer basis, where did you get that idea?

Team Fortress 2: $20 new on release dayUnreal Tournament 2004: $30 new on release day

That's why. If your game is built entirely for the multiplayer, and "no one plays the campaign anyway", why charge full price?

Oh yeah, you've got me up against the wall there, two games, both of which are several years old, as opposed to the games in Halo COD Battlefield, Gears of War Medal of Honor Starcraft and other games. Also what the heck do you mean people don't play campaign? I always play the campaign on games that I buy, multiple times in fact. Also, none of these games are built for multiplayer, all of those that I have played have had very well built campaigns

See those quotes next to no one plays the campaign? Those are important. Use them.

The biggest argument against YZ on this is exactly that "No one plays the campaign". And frankly, the majority of people who buy BF3 and MW3 don't. They get it for one reason: they want to shoot other people online with their friends.

I gave the two examples I did because they don't have a campaign. They KNOW it's all about shooting people online with your friends. And setting that standard for all games like that is a good start towards improving gaming as a whole.

Yes, but that does not mean that a company should sell a game at half price if it has a heavy multiplayer basis, where did you get that idea?

Team Fortress 2: $20 new on release dayUnreal Tournament 2004: $30 new on release day

That's why. If your game is built entirely for the multiplayer, and "no one plays the campaign anyway", why charge full price?

Oh yeah, you've got me up against the wall there, two games, both of which are several years old, as opposed to the games in Halo COD Battlefield, Gears of War Medal of Honor Starcraft and other games. Also what the heck do you mean people don't play campaign? I always play the campaign on games that I buy, multiple times in fact. Also, none of these games are built for multiplayer, all of those that I have played have had very well built campaigns

You're missing the point here. Nobody is saying no to a good campaign (Halo, SC, CoD1, BC1). It's just that when you're spending millions of dollars making a 4-hour-long campaign riddled with plot holes, bad story, insufferable game-breaking scripted sequences... I would, at least personally, rather pass on it and not pay up given the chance.

Team Fortress 2: $20 new on release dayUnreal Tournament 2004: $30 new on release day

That's why. If your game is built entirely for the multiplayer, and "no one plays the campaign anyway", why charge full price?

Oh yeah, you've got me up against the wall there, two games, both of which are several years old, as opposed to the games in Halo COD Battlefield, Gears of War Medal of Honor Starcraft and other games. Also what the heck do you mean people don't play campaign? I always play the campaign on games that I buy, multiple times in fact. Also, none of these games are built for multiplayer, all of those that I have played have had very well built campaigns

See those quotes next to no one plays the campaign? Those are important. Use them.

The biggest argument against YZ on this is exactly that "No one plays the campaign". And frankly, the majority of people who buy BF3 and MW3 don't. They get it for one reason: they want to shoot other people online with their friends.

I gave the two examples I did because they don't have a campaign. They KNOW it's all about shooting people online with your friends. And setting that standard for all games like that is a good start towards improving gaming as a whole.

Really? People say that? For Christ's sake, countless people play the campaign, Halo CEA just came out and countless people have bought it, and it's just a remastered campaign of the first Halo game. Before you say that people just bought it for the multiplayer that came with it, you can download all the multiplayer that comes with it for 15$ and play it on Halo Reach, people bought it for the campaign. The thing is, some people consider campaign and multiplayer to be worth just as much as the other, and feel a tad bit ripped off when Yahtzee basically only reviews half of the game.

Team Fortress 2: $20 new on release dayUnreal Tournament 2004: $30 new on release day

That's why. If your game is built entirely for the multiplayer, and "no one plays the campaign anyway", why charge full price?

Oh yeah, you've got me up against the wall there, two games, both of which are several years old, as opposed to the games in Halo COD Battlefield, Gears of War Medal of Honor Starcraft and other games. Also what the heck do you mean people don't play campaign? I always play the campaign on games that I buy, multiple times in fact. Also, none of these games are built for multiplayer, all of those that I have played have had very well built campaigns

You're missing the point here. Nobody is saying no to a good campaign (Halo, SC, CoD1, BC1). It's just that when you're spending millions of dollars making a 4-hour-long campaign riddled with plot holes, bad story, insufferable game-breaking scripted sequences... I would, at least personally, rather pass on it and not pay up given the chance.

I have yet to find a campaign that seriously rubbed me the wrong way, the games I've played have had a lukewarm one at the very worst.

Oh yeah, you've got me up against the wall there, two games, both of which are several years old, as opposed to the games in Halo COD Battlefield, Gears of War Medal of Honor Starcraft and other games. Also what the heck do you mean people don't play campaign? I always play the campaign on games that I buy, multiple times in fact. Also, none of these games are built for multiplayer, all of those that I have played have had very well built campaigns

See those quotes next to no one plays the campaign? Those are important. Use them.

The biggest argument against YZ on this is exactly that "No one plays the campaign". And frankly, the majority of people who buy BF3 and MW3 don't. They get it for one reason: they want to shoot other people online with their friends.

I gave the two examples I did because they don't have a campaign. They KNOW it's all about shooting people online with your friends. And setting that standard for all games like that is a good start towards improving gaming as a whole.

Really? People say that? For Christ's sake, countless people play the campaign, Halo CEA just came out and countless people have bought it, and it's just a remastered campaign of the first Halo game. Before you say that people just bought it for the multiplayer that came with it, you can download all the multiplayer that comes with it for 15$ and play it on Halo Reach, people bought it for the campaign. The thing is, some people consider campaign and multiplayer to be worth just as much as the other, and feel a tad bit ripped off when Yahtzee basically only reviews half of the game.

The other reason (I posted this earlier) is that a multiplayer experience changes from person to person. One person playing MW3 online might have several good competitive games. One person might spawn in a spawn trap, get knifed everytime he enters a building, and have an awful time. So how can you say which one is the right one?

See those quotes next to no one plays the campaign? Those are important. Use them.

The biggest argument against YZ on this is exactly that "No one plays the campaign". And frankly, the majority of people who buy BF3 and MW3 don't. They get it for one reason: they want to shoot other people online with their friends.

I gave the two examples I did because they don't have a campaign. They KNOW it's all about shooting people online with your friends. And setting that standard for all games like that is a good start towards improving gaming as a whole.

Really? People say that? For Christ's sake, countless people play the campaign, Halo CEA just came out and countless people have bought it, and it's just a remastered campaign of the first Halo game. Before you say that people just bought it for the multiplayer that came with it, you can download all the multiplayer that comes with it for 15$ and play it on Halo Reach, people bought it for the campaign. The thing is, some people consider campaign and multiplayer to be worth just as much as the other, and feel a tad bit ripped off when Yahtzee basically only reviews half of the game.

The other reason (I posted this earlier) is that a multiplayer experience changes from person to person. One person playing MW3 online might have several good competitive games. One person might spawn in a spawn trap, get knifed everytime he enters a building, and have an awful time. So how can you say which one is the right one?

Yes well one could say the very same thing about campaign, one might have a good time and one person might get killed every thirty seconds trying to do the same section over and over again (Before you accuse me of making stuff up this has happened to me on occasion) Also in order to avoid stuff like that from happening, game designers should balance out the gameplay, either making it impossible to spawn camp (Brink had a neat idea for this, making it so that turrets shot anyone that got too close to a hostile spawn point) and balancing the game out so that people get matched up with those around their same skill level and so that the game mechanics can't be completely broken. Basically you said that not everyone will have a good time playing multiplayer...the same can be said about campaign, which is while I consider both of them to be equally important.

Really? People say that? For Christ's sake, countless people play the campaign, Halo CEA just came out and countless people have bought it, and it's just a remastered campaign of the first Halo game. Before you say that people just bought it for the multiplayer that came with it, you can download all the multiplayer that comes with it for 15$ and play it on Halo Reach, people bought it for the campaign. The thing is, some people consider campaign and multiplayer to be worth just as much as the other, and feel a tad bit ripped off when Yahtzee basically only reviews half of the game.

The other reason (I posted this earlier) is that a multiplayer experience changes from person to person. One person playing MW3 online might have several good competitive games. One person might spawn in a spawn trap, get knifed everytime he enters a building, and have an awful time. So how can you say which one is the right one?

Yes well one could say the very same thing about campaign, one might have a good time and one person might get killed every thirty seconds trying to do the same section over and over again (Before you accuse me of making stuff up this has happened to me on occasion) Also in order to avoid stuff like that from happening, game designers should balance out the gameplay, either making it impossible to spawn camp (Brink had a neat idea for this, making it so that turrets shot anyone that got too close to a hostile spawn point) and balancing the game out so that people get matched up with those around their same skill level and so that the game mechanics can't be completely broken. Basically you said that not everyone will have a good time playing multiplayer...the same can be said about campaign, which is while I consider both of them to be equally important.

But in a campaign there is at least one way to get it done. Even if it takes you 10 tries. There is always one way to complete the mission.

In Multi-player, that isn't true. You could do everything perfectly, and still get shot by a guy at the other end of the map randomly firing his SMG. There are too many variables online to give a proper critique, or even review. There's a reason that when reviewers play multiplayer, they play it with a group of other reviewers in the same room. That way, everyone knows what's going on, and a 7-year old from Alaska isn't going to camp every corner with a shotgun and a knife.

mjc0961:Yeah, thanks for reminding me of that horrible Prototype VS inFamous review where two games that are completely different from each other were compared. When are you going to put Final Fantasy and Gran Turismo against each other, or maybe Super Mario 3D Land and Skyrim should go head to head?

Or maybe we can stop comparing games from completely different genres to each other, hmm?

The other reason (I posted this earlier) is that a multiplayer experience changes from person to person. One person playing MW3 online might have several good competitive games. One person might spawn in a spawn trap, get knifed everytime he enters a building, and have an awful time. So how can you say which one is the right one?

Yes well one could say the very same thing about campaign, one might have a good time and one person might get killed every thirty seconds trying to do the same section over and over again (Before you accuse me of making stuff up this has happened to me on occasion) Also in order to avoid stuff like that from happening, game designers should balance out the gameplay, either making it impossible to spawn camp (Brink had a neat idea for this, making it so that turrets shot anyone that got too close to a hostile spawn point) and balancing the game out so that people get matched up with those around their same skill level and so that the game mechanics can't be completely broken. Basically you said that not everyone will have a good time playing multiplayer...the same can be said about campaign, which is while I consider both of them to be equally important.

But in a campaign there is at least one way to get it done. Even if it takes you 10 tries. There is always one way to complete the mission.

In Multi-player, that isn't true. You could do everything perfectly, and still get shot by a guy at the other end of the map randomly firing his SMG. There are too many variables online to give a proper critique, or even review. There's a reason that when reviewers play multiplayer, they play it with a group of other reviewers in the same room. That way, everyone knows what's going on, and a 7-year old from Alaska isn't going to camp every corner with a shotgun and a knife.

That still doesn't mean that it should be ignored entirely for crying out loud, the other end of his map randomly firing his SMG...either you're making stuff up or you have the worst luck in the world. The damn thing would never hit you can even if by some miracle it did it would take several shots to kill you. You can at the very least take a look at the mechanics and tell if they're balanced or not, like in Halo not everyone has access to a shotgun so not everyone can camp with it. In fact...Yahtzee has reviewed a multiplayer mode before! He reviewed the one for Assassin's creed brotherhood, would you care to tell me why he was able to review that but not others? What was so groundbreaking about it?

Best laugh I've had in a few weeks. :DNow that I've caved and bought Skyrim myself, it'll be even more interesting to see exactly how he'll rip it to shreds.

Hands down, Skyrim is a freakin easy target. It isn't perfect (says the one who spent the last weeks in Skyrim himself), has lots of flaws, the PC version has several flaws (interface), the PS3 version has several flaws, I bet the 360 version as well. There are ongoing TES problems like "voice acting does not match the actual acting" and so on.

I won't be surprised if all those points will come up in the Skyrim review. Not to mention: The more freedom, the less focus. This is actual the biggest strenght and problem of The Elder Scrolls.

That multiplayer quote was utterly glorious. It's amusing to think that both these games collapse in on themselves when the multiplayer is ignored. And I have yet to play a single BF or CoD game and I have every console. I couldn't care less.

DVS BSTrD:Another head to head review? Did Christmas come early this year?although I would have thought the game with the neon space bazookas that fires venomous hedgehogs would win by default. But since that weapon isn't actually in the game...And we know why You haven't reviewed Skyrim yet Yahtzee. It's because you can't put that particular crack pipe down long enough to actually write the review =D

Fun Fact: Anglo-Zanzibar War was indeed the shortest war in history

And do the servers here always tweak-out whenever ZP goes up? That gave me a real scare!

And who exactly was timing this war?

OT: Great episode and good move not deciding a winner, because in the end, we are all losers for buying the same game every year.

It actually only lasted as long as the initial British naval bombardment of the Capital, so it would have been easy to time.

Extragorey:Multiplayer? I'd have thought he'd at least say SOMETHING about it. Anyway, I've always thought it's best to buy BF games for multiplayer and CoD games for single player. From what I hear of BF3's single player campaign, at least part of that is true.

You know what would be tolerablegoodbetter awesome? A game with BF's multiplayer and CoD's single player! That's $100 saved right there!

I had a feeling it would end in a draw. After all, this IS Battlefield and Call of Duty we're dealing with. Both modern military shooter with a heavy focus on multiplayer.

I very much agree with his "Shooters seem to have lost their way" comment. I love shooters. In fact, it's my favorite genre. However I personally think that it's time to shake things up a little. Maybe try to bring back some of the mechanics and design choices from the "good old days", without being (too) blinded by nostalgia.

Tsk tsk tsk, Yahtzee. You know those old fossils in the Senate says that we're not supposed to learn anything while playing video games, tangential or otherwise. And you know that those old fossils in the Senate are never wrong. -sarcastic snigger-

Also, I honestly do think both Modern Warfare and Battlefield games has ran its course in terms of plot, because seriously, both the players and the developers have given up on expecting any good motivation to blast the heads off of other people who isn't "like us". I suggest for Modern Warfare 4, they start off the game with a dude handing you a gun, and the only line of dialogue in the entire game would be him saying, "Here you go. Now, go kill some schmucks!"

ToastiestZombie:It's a shame that he has to review MW3. Mainly because everyone knows that he will not like it, and all it really is doing is giving more ammo to CoD haters. Yahtzee shouldn't have to review every game out there, because IMO this review was pointless because he skimmed over half the features of both games and didn't seem to care about the singleplayer much.

Team Fortress 2: $20 new on release dayUnreal Tournament 2004: $30 new on release day

That's why. If your game is built entirely for the multiplayer, and "no one plays the campaign anyway", why charge full price?

So based on that I overpaid for any TES game and the Half Life games? I mean, can't have double standards where single player only games can charge full price, can we?

Half-Life 2 was $30 as well. Just saying.

The amount of work a game takes should be reflected in its price. MW3 Multiplayer uses almost the same things that MW2 did. But Skyrim required work on a lot of new things. More work you have to do on it, more its worth.

MW3 is a Toyota Camry, mass-produced, easy to find, easy to use, made year after year. Skyrim is a Ferrari. Made by hand, difficult to find, and usually specially made. Should both of them be $15,000?

I am glad he really bashed hard on the games. Really BF and CoD have come up to be nothing more then clones of their predicetors. With new graphics. BF3 is nothing more then mixing MoH and BadCo 2 together and upgrading the enginen to be all shiney. While MW3 is just MW2 with new maps. Nether game is really worth 60 dollars and how Black Ops still thinks that it even worth 60 dollars when it single player was shit and the multiplayer is empty. It had really shown how bad FPS have become. Frankly I am still happy with my CoD 1 and CoD 2. CoD 4 was the last good CoD games. Now it just something to keep xbox fans from not playing halo. Lol what a bunch of looser.

Frankly games have been sucking more and more ever sence the xbox has come out. Damn you Microshit for killing the only good thing in my life. Bad enough their are to many brainless idiots that only support your shitty windows.

yeah, the SP is nothing special. just shoot and run. but still ok to play. its clearly a MP game and this actually is fun. for sure much better then black ops in my opinion. but well, it was clear he will not touch the MP. agreed pretty much with everything he said about this game.

Team Fortress 2: $20 new on release dayUnreal Tournament 2004: $30 new on release day

That's why. If your game is built entirely for the multiplayer, and "no one plays the campaign anyway", why charge full price?

So based on that I overpaid for any TES game and the Half Life games? I mean, can't have double standards where single player only games can charge full price, can we?

Half-Life 2 was $30 as well. Just saying.

The amount of work a game takes should be reflected in its price. MW3 Multiplayer uses almost the same things that MW2 did. But Skyrim required work on a lot of new things. More work you have to do on it, more its worth.

MW3 is a Toyota Camry, mass-produced, easy to find, easy to use, made year after year. Skyrim is a Ferrari. Made by hand, difficult to find, and usually specially made. Should both of them be $15,000?

Besides the fact that Half Life 2 was in fact $50 on release, which was the price of any game at the time I still have to disagree.

Your last point is completely opinion. I'm no MW3 fan, in fact I'd go so far as to say I despise the game, but you can't say MP only games should only be charging half price, while SP only games can charge as much as a full priced game these days.